Most likely, all of the above. We, your fellow citizens, do not get our opinions nor our slogans from a Central Committee.
In the Bad Old Days, an anti-war demonstration was always a very mixed bag. You had sincere Xtians who had it on Good Authority that war was inherently evil. You had toadlicking nutbars who insisted on spelling “America” with a “k”, or even three. Radical feminists who blamed it all on penile patriarchy. And, eventually, veterans draped in the tragic dignity of thier medals. Even the occasional frat rat cheerleader, though one in particular was absent.
“The rally wasn’t particularly large. It’s merely a staged event. Congress has already authorized Bush to take action. Why did the media see this moderate-sized rally as big, big news?”
Um, and the pro-Israel rally you cited was a spontaneous outpouring of sentiment?
And since Congress has “authorized Bush to take action” dissent is completely irrelevant (or immoral, or fattening)?
As noted, the imminence of war with Iraq makes stories such as this newsworthy. And yes, Saturdays are typically slow news days, which is why demonstrators choose them (apart from the fact that participants are generally able to get away from work or school).
Dissent should be welcomed*. You’re certainly not going to see its like in Iraq.
*the asterisk applying to speakers such as those who bellowed passionately about the Lack of Freedom in America.
Or the group featured on NPR, calling itself (approximately) The Committee To End War And Then Racism. :rolleyes:
As to the numbers involved in anti-war demonstrations there is this story in the Los Angeles Times for Sunday 19 January. So it looks like there are more than “2 dozen.”
This quote from the story seems to indicate a US Administration mind-set toward war in any case. “The coordinated protests came as the Bush administration continued a military buildup in the Persian Gulf and expressed confidence it can make a “persuasive” case by the end of January that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating with United Nations weapon inspections.”
It seems to me that in order to make one of our Fearless Leader’s preemptive strikes you need more than a “‘persuasive’ case that [Hussein] isn’t cooperating.” Shouldn’t the goal of our government should be to maintain peace where it exists and try to get peace where it doesn’t? Many in the US, including our president seem to be, in the words of novelist C.S. Forrester, “As warlike as an overage bank clerk.”
GW started this business by vowing to get bin Laden “dead or alive.” Somehow that changed to Hussein and the claim that we were threatened by his “weapons of mass destruction.” First, these were a direct threat to the US or our allies in the Middle East. Then the idea that “terrorists” might get such weapons. The only “proof” presented were scare scenarios about what could possibly happen if Hussein gave these weapons to terrorist. That and the claim that GW and Rumsfeld have the decisive intelligence but can’t share it for fear of compromising “sources.”
These seem to me feeble reasons to inject our military presence into an active war in a volitile region where we are already distrusted because of our support for Israel.
My complaint with the press isn’t overreporting of war protests but that it is too compaisant with respect to the propaganda of the administration. The only time that you can really argue out the necessity for war and discuss whether or not war is justified is before one starts. The executive department seems bound to not let that happen.
At the time the Chamberlain was “appeasing” Hitler, Britain did not have the resources to resist Hitler if he had actively begun a war. (Chamberlain also reacted to hearing his “Peace in our time” quote on the radio for thefirst time by expressing horror that he had actually said anything so stupid.)
In contrast, Hussein does not have either the wherewithal or the desire to attack the U.S. He wants to be the king of his hill and knows (particularly with our response in Afghanistan) that any attack that could be even remotely linked to him would trigger an all out attack on us. This war is not being fought to “protect” anyone.
Efforts to help Iraqis topple the Ba’ath regime make sense. A major war to conquer Iraq and set up a U.S. puppet, based on vague assertions of weapons that Hussein may or may not actually possess does not–and opposition to such a war cannot reasonably be compared to Munich in 1938.
According to one NPR reporter, one of the most striking things about the Washington demontrators was the range of demographics of the protestors. Starting at the extreme left who oppose war for any reason to the kind of moderates who you wouldn’t expect at any kind of political rally all the way to the very conservative. I gathered that that was one of the reasons that it was especially newsworthy.
About 20,000 marched in the relatively small city of Portland, OR.
I think the protests all over the nation represent a news event here.
Frankly I’ve been dissapointed by the lack of coverage of other relatively large peace rallies which have taken place recently. It’s the timeliness as well as the size that makes these important.
SFGate, the website of the San Francisco Chronicle, has a good, well-balanced article about the protests here. They interview both the anti-war protestors and the smaller group of Bush supporters. They give both the protestors’ estimate of the demonstration size (200,000) and the police estimate (55,000). In any case, it was a very large demonstration. I overheard one protestor estimating the crowd at 40,000, and the 55,000 figure seems about right to me. I was not a participant, but I was in the Civic Center area yesterday for most of the afternoon, and the group was substantial. I even saw the man described in the article carrying the “If war is inevitable, start drafting SUV drivers now” sign. The protestors seemed like a very mixed group – many looked like they had probably participated in protests against the Vietnam War, others were obviously high school and college kids. Some of them had signs and banners with anti-Bush rhetoric, others were merely supporting peace.
[fangirl moment]Martin Sheen was there! Right there, where I could have gotten up close to him if I’d tried. :([/fangirl moment]
Mine, as well. I am not opposed to any war, or war with Iraq under any circumstances, and I am emphatically in favor of a situation in which S. Hussein gives full cooperation to the U.N. inspectors. But this sort of preventive war on an “enemy” who has not posed a credible threat in the information available to the public is without precedent in our history, and contrary to the U.S. policy on military intervention, even as that policy has evolved over the years. I can accept the possibility that there is a tangible threat that has not been made public, but my question then is “Why not?” And I refuse to sign my conscience over to George W. Bush in this regard.
I try to avoid "me too"posts, particularly in one of december’s patented Loaded Question GD threads, but Polycarp said it all, concerning my views on this subject. So, er, me too.
From the footage I have seen there were definitely many more than the 42,000 december claims in the Jewish demonstration. Now add all the other demonstrations and yes, you have news!
The peace movement is growing within the United States and the rest of the world. I have seen in my adulthood how powerful these protests can become.
Meanwhilel, we don’t seem to be able to find a support for this war from the majority of citizens of any other country – only the government leaders of a couple of Allies.
You can tell when the supporters of war don’t have much of a case. They have to exaggerate downward the numbers. Or maybe even lie altogether about the numbers – just as the U.S. government did during the war in Southeast Asia.
During two very ugly periods of our history, the press made a huge difference. During McCarthyism, it was respected journalist Edward R. Murrow who spoke out against Joseph McCarthy – at great risk to his own career and perhaps his life. During the war in Vietnam, it was another journalist, Walter Cronkite, (labeled “the most trusted man in the America” ), who finally ventured away from just reporting into a startling commentary against the war. He changed things. I doubt that the press will want to be caught not covering “the other side of the story.”